Precedent, Inquiries, and the EC Bylaws Workgroup

The issues surrounding last week’s response to the sexual abuse controversy are incredibly complex. I know a lot has been written already. Yesterday I tried to give an overview of where things currently stand. In addition, there are so many details that deserve to be traced out to fully appreciate how we could have responded and where we go from here.

One objection we’ve heard from a number of places (just for an example this comment on a recent post) is that the bylaws workgroup wasn’t equipped or ready for the task they were given. Almost as if it was J.D. Greear’s fault for placing on them a weight they shouldn’t be expected to bear.

I believe Greear’s request to the bylaws workgroup was appropriate and in line with recent precedent.

What Was the Bylaws Workgroup Asked to Do?

The bylaws workgroup was not asked to conduct an investigation. It was asked to “perform due diligence to verify whether or not these churches are operating with a faith and practice that upholds the Baptist Faith and Message.” That’s a quote from Greear’s address.

Now, much has been made about the need to respond quickly to this request. A recommended time frame was never given by Greear. In fact, his calling for “due diligence” clearly indicated he was asking the group to take their time. I don’t know of a single person on record calling for a quick determination.

However, at this point, it’s more important to discuss the authority and capability of the bylaws workgroup than their speed of reporting. Let’s save discussion on the quickness of the report for another time.

Whose Role Is It to Verify Friendly Cooperation?

The bylaws of the EC do not explicitly assign the Administrative Committee or the bylaws workgroup of the Administrative Committee the task of verifying whether churches are in friendly cooperation. However, in recent history, those responsibilities have always been assigned to this committee.

To determine the scope of work that has been assigned to the workgroup, a little research into the Baptist Press archives shows this: In each and every instance of cooperation-related discussions in recent years, the bylaws workgroup was the group who did the legwork to help Southern Baptists decide whether or not to cooperate with a church or institution.

EC leaders have claimed repeatedly “the group doesn’t have the authority to do an investigation” or that it is “an assignment far beyond [their] capability,” however in every instance they have faced in the past decade, not only have they assumed the authority and capability, they have also exercised them. Here are four recent examples (though there are others):

2018: When the D.C. Baptist Convention was affirming pro-LGBT churches, who did the work of gathering information so the EC could determine whether they should remain a cooperating state convention? The Bylaws Workgroup

2016: When Augusta Heights Baptist Church was recommended for removal for same-sex marriage practices, who made the recommendation? The Bylaws Workgroup

2014: When New Heart Community Church affirmed same-sex marriage, who took up the task of processing that recommendation? The Bylaws Workgroup

2009: When the Executive Committee decided that further inquiry was needed into Broadway Baptist Church over their stance on homosexuality, who was tasked with the inquiry? You guessed it–the Bylaws Workgroup

On at least four occasions in the past ten years when cooperative matters required official inquiry by the EC, the bylaws workgroup was the group tasked to get the ball rolling. In fact, no other group has done this work. Therefore, it simply isn’t true what we’ve heard from some at the EC – that the group isn’t equipped, capable or tasked with this. We’ve considered them equipped, capable, and tasked in at least the four situations listed above.

Has the Bylaws Workgroup Made Specific Inquiries Before?

You also may be thinking that this time is different because the workgroup was asked to make a determination about a church, not just receive reported facts and make a clear recommendation, but one particular example gives some insight about that.

Let’s look closer at events surrounding Broadway Baptist Church.

“The Executive Committee began studying the church’s affiliation. . . after a messenger at the SBC annual meeting in June [of 2008] made a motion that the convention declare Broadway Baptist not to be ‘in friendly cooperation’ with the denomination.” (emphasis added)

See this follow-up story about Broadway Baptist. Note the quotes by Stephen Wilson, the chairman of the bylaws workgroup:

Wilson noted that some outside observers criticized the Executive Committee for delaying action at two previous meetings. He, though, said he had no regrets and that “it has always been our hope there could be reconciliation.”

“This was not a rush to judgment. We actually wanted — from the bottom of my heart — for this to be resolved by the local church where the convention wouldn’t have to be involved in any way,” said Wilson, who serves as chairman of a workgroup that studied the issue. “… I think [in February] there was a feeling that maybe this could be solved without having to go through the step that we had to do today.”

Prior to that February meeting, the church sent a letter to the Executive Committee, which stated in part: “Broadway has never taken any church action to affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior. Broadway Baptist Church considers itself to be in friendly cooperation with the Southern Baptist Convention and has every intention of remaining so.” It further stated, “While we extend Christian hospitality to everyone — including homosexuals — we do not endorse, approve, or affirm homosexual behavior.”

But Wilson said the church’s actions ran counter to what it claimed in the letter.

“[I]t was more from what they were actually doing in practice where the conflict was,” Wilson said. “While they didn’t officially endorse it, they were allowing members and also people in leadership that were homosexual.”

To recap, in this story we have:

A church called out by name by someone in the convention,

An inquiry process by the Executive Committee,

Work done specifically and arduously by the bylaws workgroup,

A church who had not taken official action as a body and who wanted to remain Southern Baptist,

A determination of cooperation that required a judgment call by the bylaws workgroup.

Sound familiar?

Now, this is not to make a retroactive assertion about what happened with any of these cases. But in the present discussion, many want to set very high thresholds for inquiry – including a level of knowledge and assent from the full church body. But in Broadway’s situation, they asserted they had not made any such statement as a church. They argued that as a church body, their belief was compatible with ours. The local association even kept fellowship with them. But ultimately the national body, the EC, assessed that their practice was not compatible, and that was sufficient reason for disfellowship.

We’ve said that the local associations and state conventions know best in such circumstances, and it should be handled by them first. Ideally, I think that’s true. But we don’t always believe that to be the case, either. That’s why the EC did what it did with the DCBC. And that seems to be why one of our entities evicted the local association who had a different position on what was going on at Broadway Baptist Church.

Now, many may say that the issues are different. That there are different levels of complexity. That’s fair. But if that’s the case, then that is the conversation we need to be having. Furthermore, working through the complexities when it comes to protecting children from predators is worth it. That’s the resolve we should be able to agree on, but it is not yet clear that we do.

We cannot save people, but we can send missionaries. We cannot force people to go to church, but we can plant a church in their neighborhood. We can not force people to grow in their knowledge of God, but we can produce good books, curriculum, and resources for them.

Likewise, we cannot force churches to adopt the policies needed to prevent and to properly respond to sexual abuse. But we can refuse to cooperate with those that harbor sexual abusers or fail to protect their church from them.

We cannot say that we have no authority to inquire or ability to make judgment calls if we have freely and intentionally done so in the past.

There are multiple precedent-setting events, even in our recent history showing the authority and the ability of the Executive Committee – beginning with the bylaws workgroup – to do exactly what was requested of them. This time, they changed their tune.

There seems to be a lot that has been forgotten regarding precedent, especially when some EC staff have dealt with these specific situations in the past. Why? I don’t know. But when issues are this serious, consistency is crucial.

Faith without works is dead. If we refuse to take meaningful action, the result of all of this will have been to show once and for all that the Southern Baptist Convention’s churches are an easy place for abusers to slip in unchecked, to move among churches that don’t warn one another, and to abuse children without any reason to believe we can stop them. Assurances that we are doing everything we can to end sexual abuse in our convention rings hollow when we do not manage to even live up to our own past actions.

Share this:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

About Brent Hobbs

Brent Hobbs is lead pastor of New Song Fellowship in Virginia Beach, VA. Before that he pastored Severn Baptist Church in Severn, NC. He's a graduate of SBTS (M.Div.) & Dallas Baptist University. WebsiteTwitter

I would reword and rework some parts of my previous posts based on this.

March 6, 2019 10:53 am

Les Colvin

Agree Dave. Definitely a rush job which
seems to show a lack of understanding of their role or of the situation Not assigning blame.
Just observing the results.
SBC is on the right track under our president’s leadership. Just have to figure out how to get there.

I do wonder about the new president of EC.
Maybe this delayed or derailed their announcement.
Maybe whoever it was decided he wasn’t “God’s Man” after all.

Matthew 19: 4-6,9 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? And I tell you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” 1 Corinthians 7:1-4 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.
1 Corinthians 9:3-12 This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. 4 Don’t we have the right to food and drink? 5 Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephalic[a]? 6 Or is it only I and Barnabas who lack the right to not work for a living? 7 Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink the milk? 8 Do I say this merely on human authority? Doesn’t the Law say the same thing? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.”[b] Is it about oxen that God is concerned? 10 Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he? Yes, this was written for us, because whoever plows and threshes should be able to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. 11 If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? 12 If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more? But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ. Ephesians 5: 15-16, 21-24 Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise, making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. 21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Philemon 1: 12-16 I am sending him—who is my very heart—back to you. 13 I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. 14 But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do would not seem forced but would be voluntary. ( Matthew 23:2-7 ) . Hope, you will read, understand and practicing its as written. God bless you all.

In the cases Brent mentions, did the EC or the Bylaws Work Group begin “investigating” (or whatever the appropriate term for what they did is) on their own initiative, or did they begin their work only after a motion about the specific situation from the convention floor?

“…chairman of the EC’s administrative committee, told BP that EC officers first considered addressing the New Heart situation when Cortez’s views became public through social media. The EC staff then researched the matter before the officers forwarded a recommendation to the bylaws workgroup.”http://bpnews.net/43416/third-way-church-disfellowshipped-from-sbc

and later in a different article on New Heart situation:
“… The fact that there was no motion made by a messenger to withdraw fellowship from New Heart Community Church during the SBC annual meeting does not preclude the SBC Executive Committee from addressing this matter, something that could happen at its next meeting, depending on what takes place with the church between now and then…”http://www.bpnews.net/42810/sbc-considers-divided-third-way-church

As I understand it, they voted to recommend the new bylaws, which will be voted in the next 2 conventions. Then JD asked the Bylaws group to handle inquiries into whether those 10 churches or any others in the future who might be found in violation of sex abuse guidelines, were in cooperation with SBC faith and practice. I don’t think the idea was that they would take about a day’s worth od Conference calls to complete the inquiry.

Because I don’t think we can amend the meaning of “better than” to support what you may be advocating.

March 6, 2019 12:57 pm

Mark Terry

Dave, eye surgery is next.

March 7, 2019 1:47 pm

Tarheel_Dave

Question:

The “rules” dealing with homosexuality are much more clear and long-standing then the ones dealing with sexual abuse… is it not clear that The work group, in your example, had much more precedent and clarity With which to render recommendation with regard to homosexuality?

Another Question:

Using the newly established rules That were announced on Twitter prior to this saga… And affirmed by many of the people discussing here in personal conversations, on Twitter, voices, and other social platforms….would a longer more protracted… Or even, if you prefer, more thorough… “Investigation” brought about a different result… Within the rules?

March 6, 2019 10:57 am

Tarheel_Dave

If we once affirmed the rules but now, upon further reflection, have seen that the rules are not adequate (I’d like to see some further tweaking) – then let’s fix those and stop attacking our brothers and sisters who, let’s assume, sought to do the right thing (also let’s assume of them are against predatorary behavior) and work within the rules in place.

We don’t want our committees saying “ well those rules are not up to my/our expectations- Therefore we are just going to make a difference here and act on our own.” Do we? Think about the terrible unintended consequences that could come from that kind of thinking…

Sounds like to me the much objected to “legislating from the bench” in the political world…Sometimes we like it… Sometimes we don’t… But it’s not the best way to do things either way.

Actually it seems as if were saying the same thing… Fix the rules. Take Poorly devised rules and processes and couple it with flawed people ( even those with good intentions)and it is almost always going to equal a flawed result.

Since this side of heaven we cannot end the flaws in people… We can and must as team members work harder at fixing the flaws in our processes. But in order to do that we must see each other as team members and not members of opposing teams

1. Yes, the current proposed constitution amendment needs to be amended or scrapped and reworked.

2. Even with the current wording the committee was not limited to those four specific criteria. They acted like they were. Your comment seems to assume that same limited and errant interpretation.

March 6, 2019 11:58 pm

Tarheel_Dave

I understand the fact the committee used a checklist approach when the wording of the amendment was listing examples….I disagree with that approach.

Therefore, although I affirmed the proposal in a comment on another post – as did others, I now agree with your number one point above. Fix it. Rework it.

Remembering that Subjectivity allows for varied interpretations and to much specificity can backfire and leave loopholes as well. Unintended consequences are attached to both approaches.

Process/policy development ain’t easy or simple in reality – no matter how much we wish it were.

As to my assumptions : I’m choosing to not employ character or competence attacks in the expression of my disagreement with regard to actions of both the workgroup and the convention president.

Even those with good hearts, Good intentions and godly desire sometimes err. Such doesn’t necessarily mean they are incompetent boobs or nefarious actors. In this case I don’t think thise characterizations are true for either “side” of our convention leadership.

What are the equivalencies between churches that promote and explicitly state their intention to be governed by principles and practices contrary to the Biblically sound principlea that govern the convention. I would agree that there are some and that they apply to this situation, but those are a matter for a different post, but I can say with confidence that not a single one of the churches mentioned in or represented by the Houston Chronicle promotes or condones pedophilia. If there is a church that seems to be doing that, you have a valid point about precedent being the guide.

I don’t know the members of the executive committee or the quality of their current or previous committment to Christ. For the record, I have seen and do do believe that there is an “indifference” to the Spiritual wellbeing of the individual believer implicit in the institutional mindset of too many churches, ministries, and larger institutional framework. Although none of our institutions are perfect, I do believe that have the moral imperative to do something when there is or has been an “evidence of indifference” to sexual abuse amongst our ranks based on the four criteria. In fact, I think this becomes criminal negligence at some point. Although there may be additional criteria that those mentioned by Greear that evidence indifference, these seem to be good starting parameters for the work of executive committee. It does seem that the EC did set a precedent of who did what, when, and why in a couple of cases; but those seemed to be about making a statement.

There were about two hundred churches represented by the Houston Chronicle story, but there were mamy others that were not reported or not uncovered by the Chronicle. There are probably several hundred or several thousand victims in reality. Initially there was a Spiritual failure in each and every one of these cases by multiple people who interviewed, hired, and served with the person without seeing something amiss in the character or disposition of the perpetrator. I agree that we should do background checks and I agree that we should do everything we can to prevent people from being exposed to abuse in our fellowships, but are we so Spiritually deficient that we are even unaware of the true nature of our deficiency.
.

March 6, 2019 2:13 pm

Jacob Colwell

Thank you for this helpful background. After reading the SBC constitution and by-laws it seems to say that the Credentials Committee should be the one to review any questions of cooperation. I don’t see any place in the description of the executive committee that provides them the power to make such decisions.

I understand the precident that you have laid out. I just don’t understand where the constitution provides the executive committee the authority to do so.

I’ve thought for some time the credentials committee seemed like the natural place for this responsibility to land. It would take some changes in the way it currently functions, but that adjustment may be part of the answer going forward.

Challenge with credentials is that, as it stands now (knowing we’re talking updates/changes), the Credentials Committee only exists for a few days in June.

We would need to:

1. Establish Credentials as a standing committee;
2. Move it from being an annual, 100% appointment by the President of the SBC to the Nominating Committee or at the very least with a vote;
3. Develop a clear picture/definition that Credentials can work from in terms of making recommendations on seating/not-seating messengers beyond the current Con/By-laws concept.

The other part of the question is this: as Credentials stands now, they are charged with reviewing the credentials of messengers to be seated at the Annual Meeting. If a church never sends messengers to the Annual Meeting, Credentials (as it stands) would not weigh in on the *church* standing in good fellowship with the Convention or not.

So, we would also need to expand the responsibility of Credentials to also validating the “good cooperation” measures of all 45,000 churches in the SBC, not just the messengers who show up (and survive the Birmingham traffic) at the various annual meetings.

It seems like a logical place to put the responsibility, but Cred right now is structurally linked to the Annual Meeting rather than the year-round fellowship of the SBC. We’d need to change that concept for them to hold this responsibility.

(Which is entirely possible, but it’s why, based on Brent’s research into recent history, a standing committee has primarily handled these matters instead.)

[…] steps” seems to call for some level of inquiry or investigation. In that regard, Brent Hobbs did a good job of reviewing past inquiries. The fact that we can find sufficient information, either […]